I don't know how EIA will be but I'm playing at the boardgame and main differences with COG are : - no detailed battle for EIA - No army, just corps. Generals may command a number of corps depand from their stats. - no detailed trade, just embargo or not. - less kind of troups. - less political factor - no military upgrade - no upgrade for country

For corps, their number and their max stat are fixed. More historic but more static too.

To my mind, COG take the best from EIA with many personal touches for upgrading this good game. COG is more complexe (because there are some economical factors), more realistic (trade, troups, politic...), more fun (detailed battle)...

Always to my mind, COG is upgrade version of EIA.... a very good upgrade version and at this time the best game on the napoleonic era.

ORIGINAL: Lorenzo Is CoG more complex and involved than EiA? Can anybody confirm it?

Since EiA is not yet out, we can only speculate as to what it might be like. It APPEARS that it is somewhat less complex than CoG in that it involves a few less areas. It is possible (though certainly not assured) that it will go to additional depth in the areas that are covered. My advice is to wait until it is released and then in short order there will likely be a number of comparisons from people who have bought and played both titles.

Being an avid boardgame EIA player and a beta tester for CoG, I can say that there are a lot of similarities in the two games and many differences as well.

Similarities:

Napoleonic Many provinces Minor country control Coalition building Surrender conditions are similar Move corps and armies around (Armies are just stacks of Corps in EIA) Navies make an appearance

Differences:

CoG has a more complex economic model (More than just money and men as in EIA) CoG has detailed battles not chit choices (Although I hear EIA will have the ability to allow miniature battles to be fought and the results imported back into the game) CoG has Sweden as a major power (Although I think EIH has this as well) CoG has more detailed trade routes

These are just off the top of my head. That being said, CoG is a good game and I enjoy playing it. I have loved EIA since High School and am looking forward to having that on my computer as well. I will probably be playing both for many years to come (as soon as EIA comes out).

- no detailed battle for EIA - No army, just corps. Generals may command a number of corps depand from their stats. - no detailed trade, just embargo or not. - less kind of troups. - less political factor - no military upgrade - no upgrade for country

For corps, their number and their max stat are fixed. More historic but more static too.

Ok lets see here....

quote:

- no detailed battle for EIA

There is somewhat detail in battles. Defenders have specific battle chits to chose from, attacker also has certain chits to chose from. Terrain of the area also comes into play. Not to mention there are numerous TYPES of battles depending if it's seige or trivial, field, etc. Different units involed in battles have their different contributing bonuses and penalties. Also different leaders have their own stats which bring numeorus impacts into the battle mechanics.

quote:

- No army, just corps. Generals may command a number of corps depand from their stats.

Well, isnt an army a corps after all? There are numerous corps counters available, most with different values. You have militia, regular infantry, feudals, guerillas (I spelt that wrong again didn't I?), artillery, cavalry, cossaks, friekorps, guards, etc. not to mention the naval side of things..

quote:

- no detailed trade, just embargo or not.

Every single port you have allows an extra trade route (if you wish). You can trade with Britain if one desires, and also have the ability to trade with USA. In Spains case, she also has the Spanish convoy to rake in. Britain having most trade control gets to start wars with usa and block american trade to everyone. Or she can be nice and trade happily with her friends. She also has other trade to herself no one else gets. And then, there are the piracy missions which come into play, and further more, anti-piracy missions... Or you can just have a regular war with your neighbour and blockade as many ports as you can blocking trade into each of them.

quote:

- less kind of troups.

I think I touched this already.

quote:

- less political factor

EiA is very much based around politics/diplomacy. Just about every battle, surrender, war declaration, and diplomacy from the beggining to the bitter end, and even the ecconomical adjustments you make relate to it.

quote:

- no military upgrade

A fresh counter can have from 1 unit, up to the maximum allowed. You can increase, or decrease the total units per counter during each reinforcement phase. A poor man can start filling in his corps with cheap militia, and then later on switch to filling them with infantry, or guards, etc. Depending which ruleset you're using, one can also convert already made units into higher value units. On the other hand, you can downgrade cavalry into regular infantry when trying to garrison cities, etc.

quote:

- no upgrade for country

Minors have many states. Neutral, influenced, conquerred, free-state, etc... Each political phase you can attempt to upgrade or downgrade them.

_____________________________

Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves…

COG is more of a resource gathering strategy game turn based instead of rts. EIA will be a wargame simulation, without the resource gathering or rts feel in a turn based game.

So, it really depends on your cup of tea. I'd rather play a wargame than a resource gathering game. Also less usually means a better AI. The more the AI has to contend with the more sluggish it gets. Hence, the good ole days of the 80's AI's still ring out as some of the best AI's around. Empire Deluxe one of those games with very little micromanagement has a superb AI, if you don't believe me load up 5 "expert" AI's and try to beat them on a 50x50 map. ;) heh

COG is more of a resource gathering strategy game turn based instead of rts. EIA will be a wargame simulation, without the resource gathering or rts feel in a turn based game.

So, it really depends on your cup of tea. I'd rather play a wargame than a resource gathering game. Also less usually means a better AI. The more the AI has to contend with the more sluggish it gets. Hence, the good ole days of the 80's AI's still ring out as some of the best AI's around. Empire Deluxe one of those games with very little micromanagement has a superb AI, if you don't believe me load up 5 "expert" AI's and try to beat them on a 50x50 map. ;) heh

thanks for your insightful reviews. I gather that COG is a kind of Europa Universalis set up in a Napoleonic context, while EIA is a traditional diplomacy-centered wargame focused on simulating the power dialectics of the Napoleonic era. If so, I think I will keep playing EU2 waiting for the latter game...

However, I would like to expand the discussion to the topic of multiplayer gaming. How well is COG suited to PBEM in comparison to EIA? Of course an informed advice shall be only possible after its release, but I am sure there are people in this forum having some kind of general idea as to how the two games perform - or may perform - in this respect.

ORIGINAL: ravinhood COG is more of a resource gathering strategy game turn based instead of rts. EIA will be a wargame simulation, without the resource gathering or rts feel in a turn based game.

So, it really depends on your cup of tea. I'd rather play a wargame than a resource gathering game. Also less usually means a better AI. The more the AI has to contend with the more sluggish it gets. Hence, the good ole days of the 80's AI's still ring out as some of the best AI's around. Empire Deluxe one of those games with very little micromanagement has a superb AI, if you don't believe me load up 5 "expert" AI's and try to beat them on a 50x50 map. ;) heh

Are you basing this on actually playing the game?

IMHO the main difference between EiA and CoG is that EiA is really more focused at the grand strategic level and also very true to the boardgame design. CoG has its roots in computer game design and does tend to merge the grand strategic with the operational a bit, giving the player a different feel in terms of detail. This does not make it a "resource gathering game".

thanks for your insightful reviews. I gather that COG is a kind of Europa Universalis set up in a Napoleonic context, while EIA is a traditional diplomacy-centered wargame focused on simulating the power dialectics of the Napoleonic era. If so, I think I will keep playing EU2 waiting for the latter game...

I don't think so. Although the economic side of COG is more detailed than EiA and you can upgrade provinces this is not that much like EU. In EU you develope your Country over centuries. Here the game is all finished inside a decade (usually). The economics is geared towards having a more complex build cost/times compared to EiA not to develope the steppes of Russia into the economic powerhouse of Europe. There just is not time for that.

I think EiA and COG are at a similar level. As COG is designed for the computer so it utilises the power of the PC for admin tasks and levels of detail more than EiA will do. Pippin gives a fine defence of EiAs depth. But really the range of units and the tracking of individual divisions morale based on the leaders, experience, length of training etc. means COG blows away EiA at this level. In COG you can try to make Spain have a high morale 'elite' army. In EiA that is just not possible. Likewise you are not as constrained with the amount of artillery and cavalry balance you can have for each country. Of course you may not like this aspect of COG but you are far less constrained in it than you in EiA.

The tactical battles may well make COG a deeper single player experience but I have not played enough to really judge.

But EiA is a well tried system. Although I don't like parts of it and how it rewards certain styles of play and strategy it does work and most of it's quirks are well known. There is no secret strategy that always works. COG may well be open to various abuses which will only come out after a few more plays, especially against other people. These may well be worse than those in EiA - time will tell

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorenzo However, I would like to expand the discussion to the topic of multiplayer gaming. How well is COG suited to PBEM in comparison to EIA? Of course an informed advice shall be only possible after its release, but I am sure there are people in this forum having some kind of general idea as to how the two games perform - or may perform - in this respect.

Lorenzo

Both are likely to shine in the multiplayer enviroment because of the large influence of diplomacy. It's something no AIs do well. Both are going to suffer from wanting 6 or 7 opponents. This makes PBEM slow. I suspect that which one handles playing the Uncontrolled Major Powers best and hence which enables you to play decent 3-4 player PBEM games will be the winner

Quite frankly both are going to take a similar amount of time by PBEM although EiA may take longer if they let France / England move as in the boardgame. COG at least has a fixed turn order. EiAs is great in a face to face enviroment but if not adapted may make PBEM very slow indeed.

Even in Single Player which one handles both the diplomatic and operational movement of forces is likely to be crucial. I don't expect much from the diplomatic model really but hopefully the movement of forces by the AIs will be reasonable or at least patchable to a decent standard.

I have COG and will buy EiA. But don't expect EU2. Which will remain on my PC too. I have even played the boardgame EU and I can highly recommend it if you have the time / people and fancy a break from EiA - make sure you get Risto's events rewrites first though

Ravinhood and Wodin couldn't be farther from the truth lol! Since neither of them have bought CoG and EIA hasn't even come out yet, they are talking through their ass.

Ron

Ron,

What elegant use of phrases you have.

To everyone else

Anyway, no I havent bought the game Im just going by what people have said who have bought it and also own the EiA boardgame.

Games like EU,HOI etc etc in the end make me loose the will to live. I prefer games that concentrate on the military side of things rather than the economic.

I do know that CoG is nothing like an RTS resource gathering game, it does seem to go into economics a fair bit which isnt for me.

I freely admit Ive played neither game. I have tried to ask questions with regards to the differences between the two. I have had a small amount of replies who have stated that EiA is more diplomatc/military based.

HOWEVER it may turn out that CoG is the game I want or even more likely Battles of Napoleon.

Hi, I can't see how any game can leave out economics and remain faithfull to the motives of the historic players. The conflicts of the era were economic in root cause. Why did France seek to conquer Europe? To add territory? No to isolate England. The plan was a reverse blockade. France could not gain control of the sea and so sought to gain control of the Nations that engaged in trade with England. Also quite simply economies produce the weapons and supplies consumed by Armies. It is more important to maintain existing Armies then to be able to produce new (but unsupplied) units. In a period of National revolutions it is undesirable for a ruling party to be unable to maintain their civilian populations. If you don't provide for them they will replace you rather then join your Army. COG deals with many aspects that were important considerations in the period that EiA does not even address abstractly. I liked EiA however for a multiplayer game on the period where the players have to concern themselves with more detail COG is my choice. I think EiA works better as a solo (against the AI) system compared to COG where some events are rather silly. However in a 8 player game COG will be much more convincing compared to EiA. (EiA has a lot of silly results that always occur when all players are human, that will not be duplicated in COG)

Of course that is opinionated upon which the player feels having to deal with all the economic and "building" structures of the game does indeed view as a "resource gathering rts type game" turn based of course. ;)

Hi, I can't see how any game can leave out economics and remain faithfull to the motives of the historic players. The conflicts of the era were economic in root cause. Why did France seek to conquer Europe? To add territory? No to isolate England. The plan was a reverse blockade. France could not gain control of the sea and so sought to gain control of the Nations that engaged in trade with England. Also quite simply economies produce the weapons and supplies consumed by Armies. It is more important to maintain existing Armies then to be able to produce new (but unsupplied) units. In a period of National revolutions it is undesirable for a ruling party to be unable to maintain their civilian populations. If you don't provide for them they will replace you rather then join your Army. COG deals with many aspects that were important considerations in the period that EiA does not even address abstractly. I liked EiA however for a multiplayer game on the period where the players have to concern themselves with more detail COG is my choice. I think EiA works better as a solo (against the AI) system compared to COG where some events are rather silly. However in a 8 player game COG will be much more convincing compared to EiA. (EiA has a lot of silly results that always occur when all players are human, that will not be duplicated in COG)

To me, the main key was CoG got released. EiA always just seems to be a rumor. How long does it take to mak a boardgame into a computer game?

I can't see how you could possibly make a game that tries to model 20 years of strategy in Europe without economics and resources. After all, the whole lead up to Napoleon's invasion of Russia revolves around the Continental System and an embargo on trade with England.

I find I do very little with province economics and improvements. I pretty much set the economics on turn 1, as the default setups are silly. Then after that, I just assign province improvements. Those seem to take a year or two to complete, so I don't do much with those. Just check provinces that show up on the Event report as completing an improvement. But the actual labor settings inside a province, I almost never touch after turn 1. I might go looking if I decide there's a crisis and I need more textiles are something.

So to me, CoG is very much a military game, with a decent diplomacy system (and so far the AI seems ok at diplomacy too).

I own CoG and have been playing it about a week. I think EiA is the board game I played some twenty years ago. So its just kind of a dim memory. I don't like to talk about something I'm not playing, so I haven't said much about EiA.

Although, I'll go back to my fist point. EiA isn't available.

_____________________________

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. ~George Washington

I think it's kind of pointless to try and draw conclusions based on what other people say they have heard about each the two games, and then use those second-hand impressions to draw comparisons between the two games.

It's silly to say that EiA has no economic component - there is a very important Economic Phase in which trade is taken into account, and not just European trade but overseas trade. However, it does not even approach the detail of CoG's system.

Having been playing CoG for a while now and EiA numerous times since I first got it almost 20 years ago, the fundamental difference is that CoG was designed from the ground up as a computer game, while EiA is a boardgame. (I have no idea what the EiA game will be like when released, so I reserve my comments to the board version.) The practical implication of this is that EiA makes a lot of compromises for playability's sake. For example, the economic phase only happens every quarter (March, June, September, and December turns). Why isn't the economy handled every turn? Probably for playability reasons - otherwise the game would take forever, given the number of calculations that have to be made (by the players) in that phase.

CoG is much more detailed in almost every way than the EiA boardgame. In CoG, every province produces different resources, has variable population, population consumes food and luxuries, etc. In EiA (boardgame), each province simply has a tax value and a manpower value. There is an "Economic Manipulation" rule that gives this a little variability, but it is an Optional rule, and is very simple and would appear extremely gamey to anyone expecting something along the lines of even CoG's slider bars. Rather than trading individual resources, trade in EiA is calculated simply by adding the trading values of all controlled ports. European trade is all considered to be done with Great Britain: GB gets the first (lower) trade value from each port, and the owner gets the second (higher) trade value from each controlled port.

This is a very elegant way of handling trade in a boardgame (go to war with Great Britain and you deny yourself income) but is nowhere near as detailed as the merchant fleets in CoG. Again, this is likely because in a boardgame, the players would have to handle everything, and making this system any more detailed would make the game take forever, and would also be drudgery as you sat and calculated every trade route possible on the map.

Combat in EiA is heavily morale-based, is influenced by tactical chit draws: I choose Assault, you choose Counterattack, and the cross-reference dictates that three rounds of combat will be fought at the 3-1/4-2/3-2 columns on the CRT. (Those actually are not odds - they're casualty and morale levels on the CRT.) The combat in EiA (boardgame) isn't nearly as detailed as even the CoG quick combat. You don't get any of the effects of unique unit subtypes - in fact, EiA doesn't make any distinction between light and heavy cavalry. It's all just "cavalry" for game purposes. Lancers? Forget it.

EiA was designed to be a playable strategic game of the Napoleonic Wars, with some operational flavor preserved. I think the designers did an incredible job - it really does manage to be playable, although you have to have seven dedicated players willing to get together regularly, knowing even a weekly game can take a year depending on how many turns you play in a sitting. However, a lot of the design considerations that went into EiA don't make sense in a computer game. In EiA there are two methods of calculating morale for a side in combat, the second of which is simplified because method one "almost certainly involves the use of a pocket calculator." You want to know what Method One is? It's just a weighted average of the morale levels of each strength point in the combat. That's something you assume without thinking in a computer game, but in a boardgame, requiring players to do long calculations between each battle gets very tedious very quickly.

I have no idea how the EiA (computer) designers are porting the boardgame. They may make a whole bunch of changes to take advantage of the computer format. But if the game gets ported directly as EiA the boardgame, it won't be anywhere near as detailed as CoG. CoG tries to be something of a sim, while EiA had to be a game, forst and foremost. The two design philosophies are almost diametrically opposed: in CoG you can't even get all the trade and income factors to add up at the end, while in EiA, you have to make the system so transparent that you can calculate every event in the game yourself. That's because in the boardgame, you had to do exactly that. So the system had to be simple enough that the transparency was replicable by all players.

There are a lot of similarities between the games: they're both province- (area-movement) based, corps-level games of the Napoleonic Wars, with a heavy diplomatic component. There are some very superficial differences: in EiA, the provinces have multiple areas, so while Berri (for example) has a tax value of 7 and a manpower value of 2, it is actually made up of four spaces with different terrain and forage values. In the end, the games try to model essentially the same things, but in every case, EiA had to take the choice of simplicity, because it was being run by players and not a computer. Every time you imagine how the games might compare, you have to take this into account before anything else.

One other point: in EiA, you could play smaller scenarios that skipped the Political and Economic Phases entirely: there were 1805, 1809, 1812, and 1813-14 scenarios that were simply about military manuevers, and played much more quickly. Thus, if you just wanted to play the invasion of Russia, you only used part of the map, and played from June 1812 to Feb 1813 (only nine turns). In this case, EiA just became a military game at the operational level. This was a function of the fact that in order to play a campaign game you needed 7 people. You could play the 1812 scenario with two. That's another difference between baordgame design and computer game design.

If I may add my ideas, I think in CoG they have tried to integrate a strategic game with an operational one. And I fear it may fall between two chairs. If you're a strategic player, you won't like to be held back by the detailed combats time and time again (the game will take ages) and you'll choose for quick combat. But if you're more operations-minded you may find the empire management too tedious. The way the AI is programmed is also far from historical accuracy and in that sense it falls far behind all Paradox products (ALL of them). The Turks in Paris ? Come on ... You won't see any Mongol hordes in France in Crusader Kings or EU II. The quick combat screen is rather silly and fully incomprehensible to me. Still I will play CoG (there's nothing better so far) but I'm looking forward to Empire in Arms (for strategic gaming) and Black Powder Wars for refighting historical battles (which looks very promising, if you're not into graphism).